I'm new here. Never have been LDS, but am what they call a long time "Anti-Mormon" (a Christian). Hope it is OK for me to comment.

My comment is a simple question. Since we know Joseph Smith lied about a LOT...could it be he also lied in his inference that the Bible is untrustworthy? The 8th Article of "Faith" puts a question mark on every verse of the Bible. Sounds to me just like something the Devil would say.
If the church really was about "restoring" what was lost, Smith could have performed the GREATEST THING EVER for the world by telling us all which scriptures were untrustworthy. Instead the net effect was to DESTROY faith in the Bible.
Bottom line: The Bible has been found to be totally trustworthy by scholars who have carefully studied the vast amount of manuscript evidence. You can google key words, Manuscripts, trustworthy Bible, and find articles on this... one great one is by Ron Rhodes. The conclusion based on tangible evidence is that the manuscripts show the Bible to be 99+ per cent accurate and NO Bible doctrine is affected by the very few variant readings. So.... what if the Bible really is trustworthy? It is an option to consider in one's search for truth.

Uh oh ....

There is a "no proselytizing" rule on this board, and this post feels uncomfortably like an introduction to proselytizing.

You should know that, besides the "no proselytizing" rule, our members span what certainly appears to be the spectrum of non-belief through belief.

We have atheists, we have agnostics, and our members span at least a good share of the world's religions and different systems of religious and philosophical beliefs. We have members who are immensely knowledgeable about world philosophies, and who also have extensive, first-hand experience with most (or at least many) of the world's religions, from tribal religions through the major global systems of belief.

We welcome your presence here suezeeque, and also remind you that no one here is trying to convert anyone into anything.

Thank you.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/16/2021 11:31PM by Tevai.

Wow...so many comments. I think I understand the difference between proselyting and making statements regarding tangible manuscript evidence.

I am not Ron Rhodes.

There is more ancient manuscript evidence for the Bible than any other ancient book. That is simply a fact. You can check it out.

I agree that Smith invented the faulty Bible to make room for his new (bogus) ideas.

Someone asked about other holy books. I have looked over the Quran, and found its manuscript evidence, that came much later on, full of huge differences, makes it a laughable book or books.


There are some text variants in the Bible...but Ron's statement was that no DOCTRINE is affected by them, and they are few.

I realize many disagree with this view. That's OK... merely presented it as an option to consider. That's not preaching. All viewpoints are being presented on this board. I am merely saddened by the fact that trashing the Bible leaves folks with pretty much nothing authoritative...no where to go to find "truth". There ARE many out there who have found that the Bible has changed their life for the better.... MUCH MUCH better spiritually. Their testimonies can be found...hundreds of them... at the exmormon files website.... and No... it's not my website.

[Edited to remove contact information.]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/17/2021 12:24PM by Tevai.

You need to read the guidelines at the top of the board. Asking people to mail you like this is against the rules here.

BTW, one person's "truth" is another's "bullshit".

Knock it off. No one wants to be preached to here. I can tell you that this is not the board for you. Go sell what you have to sell somewhere else.

You *don't* know this board because you have violated the rules right from your first post.

suezeeque Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There is more ancient manuscript evidence for the
> Bible than any other ancient book. That is simply
> a fact. You can check it out.

You need to do some basic fact checking/Googling, beginning with: What is the oldest spiritual text?

Although there are a number of contenders for this distinction, there is also debate on what qualifies as a text (for this kind of discussion).

The generally accepted answer for "oldest spiritual text" is the Rig Veda (dated variously from 1700 BCE to 1500 BCE to 1200 BCE), but there are also additional other candidates, from a number of different cultures, for this "oldest"/"first" distinction.

It appears you have been taught certain things which are not, in fact, actually historically factual.

This can be a difficult subject to parse out (does the Epic of Gilgamesh qualify?....does an ancient hymn or other, similar, work qualify?), but right now, it is important for you to gain an understanding of the historical basics of what you are asserting.

OP says: "I think I understand the difference between proselyting and making statements regarding tangible manuscript evidence."

I don't think you do. Asking questions, reading other posts before diving in to comment, checking out the list of board guidelines for posting - all those actions would hopefully inform you of which types of commentary are welcome here or not allowed.

We discuss many aspects of the Bible but not in a "defending the faith" kind of way.

As a Christian, I can say I believe in the Bible (or not!) but should avoid making absolute statements, such as yours, that the Bible is infallible, true, proven, agreed by all sides to be divine, etc.

The difference between stating that the Bible teaches that Jesus is the Son of God and stating that Jesus *is* the Son of God should be self-evident.

I don't blame newcomers to RfM for not understanding the difference or not knowing and comprehending all the posting guidelines, but hopefully they read posts on the board for a while, and check out the guidelines, before diving in and stating their religious "truth" or writing absolutisms (which both come across as preaching - not allowed).

The reasons for this rule are varied - all with a view to giving hurting people a safe space to recover from toxic religion.

It doesn't come across well when someone shows up and starts preaching from their first post, while saying they're not doing so.

As Tevai said, you are welcome here, as a new poster. But, as for all posters, there is an expectation that you will familiarize yourself with the guidelines for posting and will follow them. That includes not making absolute statements about the truth of your religious beliefs, while thinking that if you just say your piece all will be revealed to the lost throng - or whatever your underlying purpose may be.

It's impolite and condescending to people you don't know, who likely know at least as much about religion as you do, or even more.

Do you think you know something that RfM posters have never read or heard before and if you just write a post they will see the light? That's how preaching comes across here - that the new poster thinks we're uninformed, or something. That is not true. It is also a waste of time.

Discussing religious works and teachings? Yes, if folks here are interested.

Reading sermons from newcomers who haven't seen the miles of previous discussions here regarding religious texts and beliefs? Not so much.

FYI, Tevai is a devout Jew. It seems the rules sometimes get in the way of promoting your own holy book.

I don’t see a problem. Mormonism is a corruption of Christianity so you can’t analyze the pathology without looking at the roots of Christianity, which is the Bible. Half of that was ripped off from the Jews and half was constructed at the Council of Nicea. I would trust the Jews to write a holy book. That’s kind of their thing. Emperor Constantine primarily set the tone for the New Testament so it contains his personal bias. Luckily, many apocryphal books that didn’t fit the council’s narrative have survived.

So maybe the Bible is missing some “plain and precious truths”. Joseph Smith wouldn’t be the one to restore them. He was a charlatan who latched onto the restorationist movement in upstate NY. The religion he founded is an eclectic mix of ideas floating around in his time. Very little of Mormonism is original. Perhaps Joseph’s approach to polygamy was original, but originality in criminal endeavors is hardly something to admire.

We do look at Christianity, its history, texts, beliefs and practices.

But the difference here, which may be hard for some people to distinguish (especially new posters, which I don't necessarily hold against them), is that discussion of those topics related to Christianity especially, but also all religious teachings, is permitted, while proselytizing is not (i.e. profession of one's faith; faith-based ideas stated as fact, asking for people to contact them off board, inviting posters to join in other sites that are religion-based, etc).

The second issue with some new people is that they don't always realize their posts contain verbiage that is considered to be preaching - not allowed.

And if they don't read the board guidelines/rules before posting they won't even know it's an issue.

Even from the name of this board: Recovery from Mormonism, or perhaps especially because of the name, it isn't always obvious to newcomers that preaching is not welcome, for several good reasons that I've mentioned a multitude of times. It is also in the guidelines if a newbie thinks to read them before engaging.

I can empathize with some who truly just aren't aware of the rules and who are so steeped in their religion, which is a huge part of their life, that they no longer realize, if they ever did, and even if they did read the rules, what constitutes "preaching".

Because they are happy with their faith beliefs many cannot conceive of people who are figuratively and literally sick from toxic religion. For many, the answer is not more religion, especially soon after having left their previous faith behind.

I recall a quip a friend used on me, regarding religion and also non-religious circumstances: Why keep doing more of what ails ya? (I used to tend to try and slog through difficulties rather than just walk away. In that regard I caused myself more injury, unnecessarily in hindsight).

That's the situation many posters here are in. Sick. of/from. Religion.

That's why preaching doesn't help. In fact, it can be exceptionally counterproductive.

Also, many have moved on either from religion or to a different faith and therefore also do not welcome preaching attempts.

That's just the way it is around here.

I do regret it, though, if a newcomer feels unwelcome. It's too bad that many don't read a few pages of the site before diving into posting something that turns out to be against the rules and unwanted.

Many of my early posts were deleted presumably for preaching. How is one supposed to avoid preaching if they don’t know what that means? Asking questions is preaching? From a mental framework of religion, any discussion is going to feel preachy.

I like to joke, so my blasphemy has sometimes gone way over the top. Those posts stay up despite their bad taste. Cuz rules. It goes with the territory.

There's a difference between people who want to come here an engage in conversation centered on Mormonism, and those who are Christians trying to convert the "heathens." Sometimes newcomers do go through a rough patch, but IMO the OP had only one purpose in coming here.

You know as well as we do that one can "ask questions" as a polemical technique, intended to bait the answerer, lead the discussion, aver points under the guise of feigned ignorance.

THOSE questions are not the same as questions that are asked from the point of seeking information, clarification, or correction.

To act as if the two are not clearly different is disingenuous.

To act as if one's audience doesn't know the difference is either arrogant or supremely ignorant.

Tyson

It's sort of like the 2nd amendment to the Constitution -- "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." I ask you, how many gun owners that you know are members of well regulated militias? Look at that rag-tag bunch of hooligans that stormed the U.S. Capitol building. You call that well regulated? I do not. I mean, look at that man who was wearing a Viking helmet and animal skins. That is not well regulated at all. I say that even though I'm sure there must be some Vikings among my ancestors. I would call them many things, but well regulated is not among those things. And they are family. Or they are probably family.

However, my bowels are very well regulated. So you see, it's all a matter of interpretation. I blame unregulated bowels on the Devil. Every time!

You were saying?

> The Bible has been found
> to be totally trustworthy
> by scholars who have care-
> fully studied the vast
> amount of manuscript evidence.


Is there a holy book that doesn't have its supporters saying exactly this?

As to Joseph Smith being a liar, and a .., and a .., and a ..., get in line!

How could JS DESTROY faith in the Bible? That presumes that people outside the Mormon Church care or even know what his take was on the Bible. They by and large neither know nor care. Mormons don't even much care about that particular point. They just say it now and then to feel superior.

Smith knew he was making things up as he went along, and he was pretending to be a translator, so this whole "as far as it is translated correctly" was his preemptive excuse for anything he said that might conflict with anything in the Bible.

> Bottom line: The Bible has been found to be
> totally trustworthy by scholars who have carefully
> studied the vast amount of manuscript evidence.

Absurd. And historically and textually ignorant.


-------------
> You can google key words, Manuscripts,
> trustworthy Bible, and find articles on this...
> one great one is by Ron Rhodes.

Are you perchance Ron Rhodes trying to hawk your wares? And if so, how exactly do your "Israel on High Alert" and "End Times Super Trends" validate the text of the Bible?


---------------
> So.... what if the Bible really is
> trustworthy? It is an option to consider in one's
> search for truth.

If you'd familiarized yourself with this board, you'd know that virtually all of us have "considered" the option that the Bible "really is trustworthy;" and most of us have only found hucksters like Joseph Smith but without the imagination. Harvest House and its stable of authors is hardy the sort of place one would go to find credible information on the Bible.

The "Bible" is not a singular book handed down over time.

It is a collection of separate writings collected into one volume.

Bibles around the world don't even agree on what books belong in them. Easy to see for yourself. Compare a protestant bible with a catholic bible.

If the "bible" was reliable why were there such great conflicts over its meaning over the centuries.

No the "bible" is not reliable. Not in continuity. Not in doctrine and not as a historically acurate document.

Silly Heartless. God tells the people he likes the correct meaning of scripture. Everyone else is wrong and should be shot. Should it prove inconvenient to shoot them, shunning will suffice.

God likes me. For 10% of your income, I can get God to like you. Trust me on that.

Sure. Totally trustworthy. There really was a global flood. Some guy named Methuselah really did live 969 years. </s>

No reputable scholar believes that Moses & Friends tooled around the desert for 40 years, or that Abe tried to sacrifice Ike. And I mean actual scholars, not dime a dozen Xtian apologists with an obvious agenda – like you seem to have with your "99% accurate" claim.

Google "trustworthy bible"? That sounds like a 21st-century version of Moroni's Promise – approaching a topic with the intent to affirm a predetermined bias. I could also google "evil bible" and get an entirely different set of answers.

The bible is a book compiled by Bronze Age people who believed that an angry god caused lightning and thunder. The modern world doesn't need to treat it as some kind of guiding light or moral compass.

If your purpose is to preach to us on how amazing the bible is, and how we should convert to inerrant bible thumpers, you're in for a short and painful stay. Many of us were mormon missionaries, and remember all too well how annoying we tended to be.

P.S. Anyone who writes nonsense like "The End Times in Chronological Order" is as delusional as all the other prophecy preachers on Xtian TV.

The Bible has not been found "totally trustworthy" by scholars.

One example. The Lord's Prayer - some manuscripts include the Doxology - "for thine is the Kingdom" and some don't. There are also multiple translations and interpretations of the original texts. There are Greek and Hebrew words and phrases which have no exact equivalent in English.

Did you know that for every year since the KJV came out there is an English Bible translation? That's how many there are. They all have biases - the KJV is a bit loose about the subject of drunkenness, because King James had issues that way; and the NIV has very liberal biases, its board including an open lesbian - so that version has language that plays down anti-LGBT references in the Bible.

I'm not telling you to give up Christianity. Far from it. These are Satanic times, when many people are being fooled across the world. You need your faith. But the idea that we have perfect, uncorrupted Bibles is sadly not true.

"If the church really was about "restoring" what was lost, Smith could have performed the GREATEST THING EVER for the world by telling us all which scriptures were untrustworthy."

I doubt this statement holds any water and is more about manipulating people who once believed Smith performed the GREATEST THING EVER for the world in claiming divine revelations.

But...I am curious. There has to be people out there who have performed the GREATEST THING EVER for the world in creating their own "Bible" free from what Smith claimed - translating errors and further perchance included the wrong texts in it and excluded the right ones? There is a huge apocryphal library of texts that could have been in the Bible.

My question has always been, re:8th article of faith, which part has not been translated correctly?
I think you should be welcomed to this forum

The OP has TheTruth® and wants to fulfill the ghawd-given duty of sharing that TheTruth® with the needy, such as exmormons.

What's the opposite of welcoming the OP, cuz I'm not preparing a plate of cookies.

In answer to the poster's question I think it obvious that in his effort to restore or replace existing religious belief he first had to destroy or present existing belief as corrupted. It is the basis for most movements of change.

The fact that the JSTranslation of the Bible is back in a corner of the LDS metaphorical theology store room tells you all you need to know.

There is no crowing among Mormons about how modern scholarship has proven JS correct in his revised version of the Bible. I don't ever remember the JST being quoted over the pulpit in General Conference, though there may have been a passing reference or two in my lifetime. It's just not that prominent.

I think Mormons think of translation errors as being things like the Mo God has a body, and most other denominations do not accept that, the Sistine Chapel notwithstanding. The Mormon godhead is three separate beings. The trinitarian godhead is more theological Swiss Army knife.

You are really going a long way out of your way to reassure yourself that the Bible is trustworthy and not ridiculous as it obviously is.

Coming to this forum for such a reason speaks of desperation and not of the confidence you in the bible you tout.

Some cities in the Bible existed. That is about all you can trust. No evidence for hardly any of the rest, so, your 99% approval rating for trustworthiness also speaks of desperation.

As a non-Mormon Christian, I assume that you subscribe to something like the following definition of God:

"The Christian doctrine of the Trinity holds that God is one God, but three coeternal and consubstantial persons: the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit. The three persons are distinct, yet are one "substance, essence or nature" In this context, a "nature" is what one is, whereas a "person" is who one is."

This definition is manifestly incoherent. It makes no sense in human language beyond its mystical effect. In other words, there is no evidence that can be presented -- even in principle --that would support, much less prove -- that such a Being exists. It is not even possible for you to understand or describe in coherent human language just what it is you believe in that encompasses this definition.

According to Mormonism (in its strict doctrinal view) God is an exalted 'personage' in the form of a human being; having "body parts and passions." However unsatisfactory that definition might be theologically, it is NOT incoherent. We (all of us) understand what these words mean. We understand just what is being claimed here, even if we reject it. We can think of evidence that in principle would support the existence of such a Being, even if we deny that such evidence exists. (e.g. JS's first vision claims)

In short, going from a Mormon view of God to a Christian (or Eastern mystical) view of God is a step downward in one's rationality not a step upward. Whenever your belief is inconsistent or incoherent, ALL rationality is lost. When you believe in something that is coherent, but without evidence, you can at least retain a meaningful rational hope.

I hope this helps both you and other Christians on the Board who think that when they switched from Mormonism to traditional Christianity they were exercising enhanced critical thinking skills.

Unwelcome, indeed. I won't be back. I did not realize one couldn't ask people to contact me personally... as I saw a lot of e-mail addresses in the testimonies section. I THOUGHT I saw some who were actually seeking answers, options... silly me. Sorry.

You were mistaken. You will need to find an audience elsewhere.

Will she never be back, or will she check back to see if one of us repents and begs forgiveness, because of the remorse imparted by her parting condemnation?

Will you toss and turn tonight, as you attempt to compose yourself for sleep, tormented by the memory of your behavior towards this fine woman (maybe...) who only wanted to help us by letting us join her in the one true, correct version of the Christian religion ... supposedly...

Suggestion: Read books by Bible historian Bart Ehrman, who focuses on the history of how the Bible was put together. Ehrman had the integrity to give objectivity priority over the results he had expected to find. The books he wrote are the result.

Titles of two of the books, as a suggested place to start:

Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the hidden contradictions in the Bible (and why we don’t know about them.)

Jesus before the gospels: How the earliest Christians remembered, changed, and invented their stories of the Savior.

“Jesus, Interrupted” was very significant in my journey away from Christianity, Mormonism, and religion in general.

I've been wanting to read some Bart Ehrman for a long time.

He's worth the candle.

Too bad most chose to attack and belittle rather than answer the question and to explain why her naivete was not acceptable under board etiquette.

IMO she was never here to engage in a true conversation. She was here to proselytize. When given gentle correction by Tevai, she dug her heels in. I have no sympathy for her.

"Bottom line: The Bible has been found to be totally trustworthy by scholars who have carefully studied the vast amount of manuscript evidence."

This is not just a little naivete. This is full on preaching. She was here to tell us that though Joseph Smith was a con, the Bible isn't. I found it odd she even knows about the Articles of Faith, let alone that she is letting us know that one of them caused us to doubt the Bible---and that we should not, cuz, it's been proven, by people she believes, to be 99% trustworthy.

She has cherry picked her sources. A naive person wouldn't do that. There are hundreds of other books on the subject that examine rather than champion.

Well, about that Articles of Faith thing, I think she knows quite a bit about LDSInc. A quick google on the email addy she posted went back to a business in Idaho. A very mormon part of Idaho. A part my whacko gun nut anti mask/vax zero critical thinking family lives.

Another big tell is that it was not an attempt at dialogue. No request for give and take. Statements made as fact and not their experience. "By googling manuscripts, trustworthy Bible I have found many things that makes me think XYZ, Have you had the same experience or have you found things that have brought you to different conclusions?" "I have found "truth" that speaks to ME. Has this been the same for anyone here?" (Not to mention that by searching for those terms will bring up things to confirm your conclusion not unbiased material)

An assumption of the ignorance of the people here. A simple forum search will show many in depth discussions on the Bible from many different perspectives. From the Gnostic Bible to the influence of Mithraism. Just because we have left LDSInc doesn't mean we have no concept of what a Bible is and have never taken it upon ourselves to research.

This is just plain painful - "There ARE many out there who have found that the Bible has changed their life for the better.... MUCH MUCH better spiritually. Their testimonies can be found...hundreds of them... at the exmormon files website." Well, if you google from mormon to atheist you will find a lot of "testimonies" too. Again, looking for confirmation.

"An assumption of the ignorance of the people here."

This is the thing, these people's first assumption is that they are smarter and more informed than anyone else. Pretty obvious with her. She was here to straighten us out, show us where we had gone wrong.


Thank you for the extra info Susan. Helps stave off the ignorance. :) Yeah. That section of Idaho is getting famous.

Give them some credit, though! Remember, it's the home of the Fighting Fries!

Haha. Yes. I shall have a baked potato in their honor this very week-end. Death by butter and sour cream!